SADTU conference, Johannesburg
1 September 2006
âTeachers are the frontline in our defence against ignoranceâ
President Willy Madisha
Deputy President Edwin Pillay
General Secretary Thulas Nxesi
Assistant General Secretary Solly Mabusela
Other national office bearers
Provincial leaders and delegates
Thank you for inviting me to address this national congress. Given that we
are 12 years into our new democracy I believe that this congress occurs at an
important time in our history. Your reminder to the nation that we should
resurrect our democratic appropriation of the concept of peopleâs education
stands as significant testimony to the fact that this progressive union of
teachers has not forgotten its close relationship to the history and aspiration
of the people of South Africa.
It is an honour for any Minister of Education to be invited to address
congresses of organised teachers.
Your invitation to our Ministry and Department is evidence that despite
differences of opinion and approach that we may have from time to time, a
symbiotic link between ourselves, as contributors to the realisation of the
social transformation of South Africa, is vitally necessary and obligated by
the role handed to us by our shared history.
The last time a member of the Pandor family was at a South African
Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) Congress was back in 1990, the launch
Congress, when a certain Mr Sharif Pandor, with a mandate from the Western Cape
region, nominated a certain Mr Mdlalalana as the first President of the
union.
It is good to be among progressive teachers who have a full understanding of
the deep responsibility we have for giving shape to the intellectual quality of
our youth and our nation.
Many of you are teachers who played a role in education during the darkest
of times, teachers who have steered our country and its people as we emerged
into freedom, teachers who continue to play a leading role in making a reality
of the right to education enshrined in our constitution.
I spend a lot of time visiting schools, attending local meetings and
functions, meeting and talking to teachers and all these experience give me a
very good feel of what is happening in our schools and classrooms. I base my
contribution today on much of what I have drawn from this practical
exposure.
For this is my first address to a national congress of SADTU. I hope that
this contribution will serve as a useful addition to your consideration of
educational matters.
SADTU is the key union in democratic South Africa; the largest, the one with
the muscle to strongly influence and promote the fundamental transformation of
education in South Africa.
As you emerge from this conference, I am hopeful that you will lead and
support a forceful impact on the remaining vestiges of apartheid education; an
impact that could finally confirm that apartheid education is dead.
Such an assault is necessary, because despite the admirable efforts of our
political leaders, despite the admirable efforts of educators working against
the odds, despite the admirable efforts of learners learning in dismal
contexts, we still find the stamp of Bantu Education and apartheid-induced
inferiority in many of the institutions in our country.
This conference must emerge with a leadership, resolutions and programme of
action that will signal to South Africa an unambiguous commitment to engage in
the final assault against education for mediocrity. As I said at your Council
meeting last year, it will be criminal for us to repeat these concerns and
debates twelve years from today.
A fundamental change must happen because society can only have faith in a
revolutionary future if that faith is buttressed by quality education.
You are, therefore, the frontline in our defence against ignorance.
A conference is an important opportunity for reflection. However, such
reflection is only useful if it is used honestly and transparently for a
critical analysis of our role as practitioners, our role as agents of social
change.
This conference must answer a range of key questions such as the
following:
* What did you set out to do at the inception of your organisation?
* What have previous conferences agreed?
* Have you achieved your objectives?
* Do the resolutions and objectives speak to the national interest or do they
purely limit SADTU to sectoral interests?
If you have not achieved your previously set objectives, you must in this
congress, honestly and openly, ask why.
The SADTU that was formed in 1990 confronted these issues; it saw itself as
firmly tied to the pursuit of an agenda of educational transformation in South
Africa, an education that would reflect the core objectives of peoplesâ
education. Given this progressive mandate, you have to ask: what has gone
wrong? Why do we all seem to have lost sight of agreed priorities?
If we believe that apartheid ideology was a tool used very heavily against
the majority in this country, why have not we been able to mobilise the space
opened up by democracy to achieve educational liberation? If we believe that
teachers make a real difference, why have not we liberated our nation from the
intellectual prison that was Bantu Education?
If we accept this characterisation of SADTUâs role, the first question you
must ask yourselves is: what have we done with our progressive mandate?
Responses to this question must begin with the assertion that our victories
are joint victories.
From 1992 and earlier, you played a leading role in shaping post-apartheid
education policy. When the process of framing new education laws began in 1994,
the support SADTU gave to the committee, to the first ministry and to the first
post-apartheid department was invaluable, consistent, and progressive. Our
policy making was backed up by focused, informed, politically clear submissions
from SADTU. These shaped our actions. And look at what we achieved:
* In Grade R, we had only a 40% participation rate in 2002; this year over
70% of five year olds are attending.
* An unprecedented 98% of our children aged 7 to 15 are at school, and over 80%
continue beyond grade 9.
* Over the past 11 years we have significantly improved spending on education.
Today spending is 50% greater in real terms than in 1994. Our overall education
expenditure is at 5,5% of gross domestic product (GDP), which is high when
compared to both developed and developing countries.
* We have re-skilled or qualified 90 000 under or unqualified teachers since
1994.
* We have seen a 25% growth in Further Education and Training (FET) college
enrolments since 1998.
* We have had massive growth in higher education enrolments, especially of
Africans and women, which is encouraging. This year, we allocated R954 million
to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), and R302 million was
added in repaid loans, which enable over 110 000 poor students to attend
university.
These are considerable achievements; these have been our victories.
The next question you have to ask yourselves is: what still remains to be
done?
The first thing that has to be acknowledged, as we respond, is this. We have
forgotten about the core thesis of peopleâs education. The core thesis is that
education is about the creation of a positive and confident identity for every
schoolchild; education is a process that leads teachers and learners to a full
understanding and execution of their various roles in society.
Peopleâs education was never a mere slogan or empty rhetoric. Carrim and
Sayed (1997) called peopleâs education âa social movement concerned with the
altered forms of production and social life in contemporary societiesâ.
Peoplesâ education is thus a dynamic and positive interface between social
action and education praxis.
The development and articulation of peopleâs education closely mirrored
national aspirations for a transformed and transformative platform of education
policy and practice.
Post-apartheid education was rejected as a framework that demeaned, that
offered anti-intellectual content and practice, and that promoted poor
teaching, poor learning and under-resourcing.
The early expression of peopleâs education focussed on alternative history,
alternative literary studies, progressive writing. These are areas in which
social action and identity are most usually constructed; so it is important to
begin there.
Kallaway (2004) in his seminal work on education under apartheid reflects on
teachers as political actors under apartheid. He explains that many taught
alternative content to encourage intellectual liberation, but he also refers to
quality teaching as a tool of subversion. He asserts that many teachers decided
to teach well, to confound apartheid, and to allow the emergence of a well-read
cadre of politically mature youth leaders.
What might peopleâs education mean in our present conjuncture? Is it
possible to use our education system for national and progressive subversion?
Have you played a role of revolutionary leader of practice and policy? Or have
you regressed to unimaginative protests and challenges a model that Carrim and
Sayed call âcriticalâ rather than positive struggle?
It must be appreciated that SADTU, through its size and influence, is a
union that has the ability to make or to break the national transformation
project. I certainly understand that. Its reach throughout the country, its
relationships with communities, with parents and with learners, makes it
possible for the union to drive a process of educational change, or to ensure
it never happens.
One of the facts we need to acknowledge is that not all of us have acted as
positive contributors to education change and social reconstruction in our
education system. There are many reasons for this, but all we can do at this
congress is to return to the truism that states the real difference in
education is made by a teacher.
I have taken responsibility for many of the unacceptable aspects of our
education system, and I am equally committed to addressing them as quickly and
as fully as possible.
I have said on many occasions that it is wrong that black children,
especially the poor and those living in rural areas, should have to wait so
long for the âbetter lifeâ we have promised.
I have said that quality is indivisible: what is good for urban middle
classes is also good for poor people in fact, the poor deserve even more, given
the apartheid legacy we have inherited.
We have no dispute about this, I hope, and we must be bold in ensuring our
policies and programmes support this redress approach.
The two major initiatives that I have introduced will go some way to
responding more positively to our gross inequalities.
The first initiative is the declaration of âno fee schoolsâ in direct
pursuit of the 1994 mandate of the African National Congress (ANC). This year,
over 20% (2,5 million poor children, in 7,687 primary and secondary schools),
have been relieved of the burden of compulsory school fees, and in 2007 we will
move to ensure a full 40% of all learners are in no fee schools. We have been
able to guarantee these schools a minimum âadequacyâ amount, as a result of
improved budget allocations to provincial departments of education. I do
believe a more detailed analysis of education funding is necessary in order for
us to determine whether the funds that are allocated are being used maximally.
In other words, are they giving us that which we intend to purchase?
The second initiative is Quality Improvement and Development Strategy (QIDS
UP). Last year, in 2005, cabinet accepted our proposal that a decisive assault
on the enduring vestiges of apartheid in education was urgently necessary. If
properly implemented, it will serve as a direct affirmative action response to
the plight of schools that are attended by the most marginalised in our
society. The programme proposes additional quality infrastructure, learning
support materials, and additional teachers above the current norms and
standards.
As I indicated in my budget speech this year, this intervention will be
focused, targeted and purposeful. The 2006/07 budget allocation included a
significant increase over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) baseline
as the initial funding of QIDS UP.
Those are the two significant interventions. They will contribute towards
the provision of peopleâs education, towards improving education for
working-class children, towards improving resources, and towards improving
teaching. I have also made no secret of my view that teaching is a profession.
Thus service conditions and remuneration should reflect that status. I hope
that the initiative our cabinet has taken to examine the nature and form of
public service remuneration will serve as the beginnings of a movement towards
a coherent and fair remuneration structure for teachers.
Nevertheless, we must accept that paying attention to peopleâs education
means paying attention to effective teaching and learning.
No school can claim to be educating if it produces learners who are neither
literate nor numerate.
The implementation of our national curriculum requires attention. More and
more training will be provided. I must, however, stress that a teacher who knew
how to teach reading in the past knows how to teach reading today and should do
so. Many teachers who are not succeeding in support learning complain that it
is our new curriculum that makes learning and teaching difficult.
It is vital to recall that the curriculum is our curriculum, SADTU supported
its introduction. We must do more, all of us, to make the curriculum work.
There are schools that are implementing successfully we need to encourage the
creation of local curriculum committees that support clusters of schools to
share expertise in literacy skills, in materials development, and in promoting
success.
The curriculum is challenging, but it is a necessary level of challenge.
Together we must devise strategies to make greater sense of it all.
Paying attention to peopleâs education means paying attention to efficient,
informed and delivery-oriented government. Our national and provincial
departments will provide high levels of support through qualified and competent
people. We will also strengthen and improve Learning and Teaching Support
Materials (LTSM) delivery strategies. It is dishonest to assert a demand for
quality education, if schools sit for seven months or more without LTSM, if it
takes officials two years or more to confirm appointments, and if provinces
refuse to delegate meaningful powers to district offices.
Paying attention to peopleâs education also means paying attention to the
quality of teacher development.
We anticipate that the teacher development framework will be available for
comment and discussion later this month. There has been some mudslinging on the
matter of accreditation (licensing) of teachers. I hope once everyone
understands our intentions, they will find it possible to support the proposals
I will be making with respect to continuing professional development. I believe
it is essential for public confidence in the competence of the teaching
profession, but not only for public confidence, for your confidence in
yourselves, for your pride in teaching.
Allow me to briefly explain my interpretation of licensing. It is important
to distinguish it from teacher registration to teach. By licensing I mean
accreditation for teachers who will have undergone our quality assured teacher
development programmes that will be offered by competent selected quality
providers.
There is no intention to exclude or punish any teacher. Rather, I wish to
provide teachers the opportunity, once they are in service, to have
accreditation or licensing that indicates their competence has been improved
through their participation in development opportunities. I wish to be so bold
today as to say I am sure you will eventually support the framework. I believe
it will go a long way towards improving the status of teaching as a
profession.
I also would seek your agreement that I am accurate in my belief that those
who lead our schools as principals should be persons who have proven competence
and qualification in education leadership. The proposal that we have made for
an entry-level qualification for aspiration principals seeks to give effect to
our view that a person who seeks to lead a school should have characteristics
that set them apart as quality leaders.
Paying attention to peopleâs education means paying attention to the content
of what we teach and to the competencies we bring into our teaching role. Our
curriculum has changed substantially; the skills taught and abilities nurtured
are progressive and enabling.
But is the content sufficiently liberatory, sufficiently liberating? Does
the curriculum firmly advance the values contained in our constitution? What
kind of young South African walks out of school after grade 12 a young South
African who respects dignity, who values equality, who cherishes human rights
and freedoms?
Given the status of SADTU as the most progressive educator union we also
have to examine the degree to which you as practitioners use the
socio-political space of your classrooms to inculcate and transmit a
progressive agenda.
Some believe that content does not matter. I say to you today that those who
believe in peopleâs education believe content is imperative; content shapes
ideas, content defines responses, and content moulds national consciousness.
Content is, therefore, extremely relevant.
In closing, Comrade President, last year you challenged your members to work
for the improvement of education, to explore creative ways to upgrade and
re-skill teachers, and to ensure that they led the struggle for peace and
tolerance in our country. I am sure there can be no objections to these
challenges; I certainly cannot fault you on these.
But like any organisation, including government, the gap often lies between
the preferred policy position, and the actual implementation of these
approaches. The Department of Education has this problem; I think the union may
have it as well. I have too often been disappointed by the complete mismatch
between what the union leadership says, and what members on the ground are
doing.
You are opposed to corruption, but some strike and protest when corruption
is exposed.
You demand quality education, but are silent when some teachers are late,
absent, and unprepared for classes and create dysfunctional schools.
I hope that through my contribution to this congress I have made it clear
that I see our relationship as a partnership in the furtherance of equity and
quality in education in South Africa.
There are many issues that the spirit and intent of peopleâs education
requires us to give attention to. Among these is the important matter of
mother-tongue-based education in our system. We will say more on this in future
discussions we must hold.
Suffice it to say for today, if we do not make more effective use of
mother-tongue-based education, particularly at the primary school level, our
children will not enjoy a quality school education.
In addition to this matter there is the issue of teacher evaluation and
development. The IQMS tool was an important joint agreement with the leadership
of teacher unions in our country. But as the Secretary-General asserted a few
weeks ago, we have too many tools that do not work together in a synthesised
and coordinated manner. They have the propensity to confuse the system rather
than to enhance the quality of teaching.
It is my intention to establish an external education and evaluation
function outside the department but responsible to the Minister. I wish to make
it clear here that such an intention must not be interpreted as a move to erode
past agreements. Rather we will model the planned national education evaluation
development unit as a partner and corollary to existing tools.
Peopleâs education was never empty rhetoric. It was and is a call to
progressive national action, a call made in education because it is you, our
nationâs teachers, who have the peopleâs trust and who have the power to shape
the emergence of modern, progressive, and humane young South Africans.
Peopleâs education depends on you.
1. Carrim, N and Sayed, Y, Democratising Educational Governance in South
Africa: Policy, problems and prospects. South African Journal of Education, 17
(3) 1997: 91-100.
2 Peter Kallaway âIntroductionâ in Peter Kallaway (ed), The History of
Education under Apartheid 1948-1994. The Doors of Learning and Culture shall be
Opened (Pearson, 2004).
Issued by: Department of Education
1 September 2006
